Voting to End Poverty
By Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA)
On 19 June 2015
As we approach a crucial parliamentary election, the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA) underlines the importance of renewing the pledge to end poverty, an injustice that can and should be overcome. Guaranteeing access to basic entitlements and a decent minimum standard of living for everyone assumes even greater significance in the post-war context. Even though Sri Lanka managed to ensure access to food, health, and schooling for most of its population despite a 30-year war, in reality significant disparities remain. Many forms of deprivation and vulnerability continue to be stubbornly entrenched while new ones have emerged, particularly in the aftermath of the war. It is in this context that CEPA urges action on the following seven issues.
First and foremost there is a need to build economic and social policy on more robust estimates of poverty. Officially 6.7 % of Sri Lanka’s population is considered to be below the poverty line. But in reality this hides more than it reveals. The cost of a basket of food items (that can provide at least 2030 kilo calories per day per person) and other non-food basic needs is used to calculate the poverty line. As of May 2015, the poverty line for Colombo district was Rs. 4003/- per person per month; a meager 134 rupees per day to meet a person’s minimum requirements of food, clothing and shelter, health, transport, energy and other needs.
It is obvious that even as a statistical measure it woefully underestimates what is needed for a decent standard of living. In other words, 6.7 % of the population are not merely below poverty line but are in fact destitute. In addition, a large number of households are clustered around or near the official poverty line; in 2013 pushing the poverty line up by 10% would have resulted in an additional 800,000 people being classified as poor. It is time to count everyone who deserves to be counted and refocus policy so that it accounts for a more multi-dimensional approach to poverty rather than relying on narrow measures of income and expenditure related to consumption.
Second, there is an urgent need to redouble efforts to address poverty in the estate sector. While a near hundred per cent increase in wages may have helped contribute to a dramatic fall in the percentage of households counted as poor in the estate sector—from 32 % in 2006 to 11 % in 2009-10, the average income and expenditure of estate sector households continue to remain significantly lower than national averages and other sectors of the economy. Moreover in comparison to the rest of the country, estate sector households are disadvantaged in terms of quality of housing, report lower access to toilets exclusive to the household and access to drinking water within the premises, and also suffer from low educational attainment.
Notwithstanding recent measures to safeguard land and housing rights, measures to redress the structural problems associated with the enclave system that also reduce the effectiveness of social welfare investments and programmes are an imperative. Equally critical are measures to address the political economic and ecological imbalances that contribute to entrenched multi-dimensional poverty in the sector.
Third, the raft of economic reconstruction initiatives launched in the post-war North and East merit a significant review. In particular it is vital to take measures to address fast-growing indebtedness, whether in connection with housing programmes or the rapid proliferation of microfinance and leasing operations. Expanding social protection programmes, also critical in terms of enhancing state legitimacy, possibly as part of a comprehensive post-war reparations and development programme that also includes addressing damages, restoring assets, addressing household indebtedness as well as economic precariousness is critical.
This must include a particular focus on female-headed households, widows, and women more generally, not as stereotypical micro-financial subjects as is currently the case but as political economic agents in their own right in sectors as varied as fisheries, small or micro enterprises, and tourism. A critical aspect of the economic reconstruction agenda must be to accelerate secure and sustainable access to land and the commons, especially in land and coastal marine resources, as part of ensuring secure livelihoods.
Fourth, the question of the commons and natural resources is a broader national concern. Disasters like the Meeriyabedda landslip, and the recurrence of hazards such as floods and drought and the toll they take on communities in poverty underline the significance of integrating environmental concerns into development policies. It is crucial that policy recognises that such impacts are inextricably tied to the causes of poverty, powerlessness, and lack of access to resources and alternatives.The risks posed by climate change only underscore the urgency to adopt a more comprehensive approach to enhancing disaster risk resilience in the rural, estate and urban contexts. However, this has to be part of a broader sustainable orientation of integrated rather than segregated policy, planning and implementation.
Fifth, adopting a pro-poor approach to infrastructure and urban development is crucial. The benefits of the post-war emphasis on urban-centric mega-infrastructure-led development are far from unambiguous. The importance of infrastructure as an economic sector in itself and as a means to catalyzing further economic activity must not be divorced from considerations of equity and sustainability, particularly in a context where financing often implies accumulating long term foreign debt. Rigorous systems of assessing economic, social and environmental costs and benefits need to be integrated into infrastructure and urban development programmes whether in the context of social housing, transport and mobility, or the development of urban commons and public spaces.
The recent past has witnessed large-scale involuntary relocation of thousands of low-income families in Colombo as well as displacement elsewhere due to development projects. This has taken place without an accompanying framework of social safeguards exposing many communities already in poverty to further risks. It is crucial to upgrade, legislate, and make mandatory the application of the National Involuntary Resettlement Policy (NIRP) to all infrastructure and development projects. The relatively positive experience of resettlement with the Southern Expressway as a result of following the safeguards set down by the Asian Development Bank and the NIRP only serves to further underline the value of such an approach.
Sixth, addressing poverty calls for deepening democracy and strengthening inclusive and accountable governance. At least two crucial issues are worth noting in this context. To begin with there is the co-existence of relatively high human development indicators for women alongside their abysmally low rates of representation at the local (<2 %), provincial and parliamentary (6 % in each) levels of governance. The under-representation of women is indicative of broader patterns of exclusion that invariably have negative consequences for communities in poverty, especially women and girl children.
A seventh issue concerns the importance of measures such as a robust right to information law coupled with innovative social accountability mechanisms like social audits and community/citizen report cards. As CEPA’s work on enabling the development of community/citizen report cards in the context of education in the Northern Province has underlined, such processes can amplify community concerns, identify and address gaps in service delivery as well as point to areas of effective functioning.
In a democracy, economic and social policy must be the subject of political debate and contestation. Far from being a matter to be left to technocrats, economic and social policy must necessarily be shaped within the crucible of competitive democratic politics. Communities living in poverty have the greatest stakes in democracy and Sri Lanka’s elected representatives therefore bear a special responsibility to make poverty history.
Originally published in the Sunday Observer
